ExpandCollapse

New Member

Or, what is the accepted version for a person of another language? Are they to deal with the Middle English or should they emulate the rationale of the translators of 1611 and give each people a translation in their own tongue?

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

Two different translation committees gather and each produces their own translation.
THey both use the exact same mss basis for their translation.

they both use the same literal approach to the task.
They both come up with very similar translations but they do differ slightly in places.

Which one is the inerrant Word of God?

Click to expand...

Both!

It happened to the the KJV translators themselves (actually within the same committee). I have detailed posts on this issue in the BB archive. KJVOs that make the claim that two translations of the same ancient text cannot be different and yet both still be correct do not know their KJV well.

ExpandCollapse

<b>Moderator</b>

Moderator

Edited by Phillip (see post below), I accidently quoted the wrong person by clicking on the wrong post. I am sorry and I will let the following stand alone based on other posts above that I truly don't remember who I was trying to quote.

I would say that it has just as much to do with misunderstanding that when I translate from one language to another I have to make compromises due to the language structure itself. If I translate Spanish to English, the words are all mixed up (to me--in Spanish), but to a Mexican, the English is all mixed up. For instance, in some languages there are more tenses than we have in English. I'm not an expert at Greek, but it is my understanding there are more tenses in Biblical Greek than in English--how do you change a word to a single word in English when they do not mean the same. It is my understanding the Japanese language has many worrds for one of our words and vice versa.

Then there is street language. No matter how hard we try to teach our kids the structure and grammar of English, they have their own way of talking. Do we ignore that and tell them tough, you must understand KJV language or you cannot read the Bible--plus, kids are not educated in reading in the U.S. as well as 20 years ago. I can pretty much prove this. Graduate students struggle because they cannot read the book, not because they cannot understand the concepts.

There are many issues involving translation and these are just a few.

I do agree that there may be a difference in manuscripts, but todays theologians have narrowed down the errors, to (I believe Doc says) 1%. That 1% is not changing the "Words" of God. It is simply the medium where things are transmited. (As an example I left a "t" out of the word transmitted, which is an error; how many of you were smart enough to figure out what I meant?)

I culd writ a wole bunch o worrds wiht erors.

That was way more than 1% error we have found in comparing manuscripts. Could you read that sentence?

Just another example of what might be meant as a difference or error when a scholar studies manuscripts. I know it is more complex than that, but I'm trying to open some eyes as to what a scholar means by 1% error among manuscripts.

That line was probably between 10% and 20% in error of spelling, but you could still read it.

Ever watch a kid write a text message? No vowels, among other short cuts. Language changes and errors do not always make for an unreadable manuscript. (That's two points I'm trying to make, by the way!)

Just some thoughts to mull over; and yes, I respect and read the KJV myself and understand many, many Christians have used the KJV over the years--does that mean we sit down and quiit working to modernize the languages of our translations? I don't think so. In 1611, the result was to modernize the Bishop's Bible among other English translations so the common folk could read it. Do we speak that way today? :thumbs:

ExpandCollapse

Banned

Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Ten at Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings; seven had Romans through Jude. At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes, while seven others handled the Apocrypha. Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.

Fifteen general rules were advanced for the guidance of the translators:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.

4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.

10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.

11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King's Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.

The work began to take shape in 1604 and progressed steadily. The translators expressed their early thoughts in their preface as:

"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavor."

They had at their disposal all the previous English translations to which they did not disdain:

"We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's...or Queen Elizabeth's of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance."

And, as the translators themselves also acknowledged, they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from:

"Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, CHaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the COmplutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza."

Four years were spent on the preliminary translation by the six groups. The translators were exacting and particular in their work, as related in their preface:

"Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see."

The conferences of each of the six being ended, nine months were spent at Stationers' Hall in London for review and revision of the work by two men each from the Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford companies. The final revision was then completed by Myles Smith and Thomas Bilson, with a preface supplied by Smith.

The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:

Click to expand...

The amazing thing about the KJB is the number of men who worked on the translation, yet they came to agreement. This is similar to the scriptures themselves, one of the greatest arguments that the scriptures are the Word of God is that many men over thousands of years agreed perfectly with each other.

If you think that is meaningless, get a group of intellectual scholars together and discuss almost any subject. If there are 100 scholars there, you will very likely end up with 100 different opinions.

ExpandCollapse

<b>Moderator</b>

Moderator

Hi Phillip. You began your post by quoting mine. I did not really see a close connection between them. Did I miss something?

Click to expand...

YOU didn't miss anything. I'm TDY (Army for Temporary Duty away from home) and I'm using a mini laptop that if I had connected my mouse instead of using the mouse pad which is very touchy, I wouldn't have clicked on the wrong post.

I am very sorry and since I can edit in this will just remove the quote leaving the statements from me.

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

The translation of the KJB was far more complex than two committees. ...

... The amazing thing about the KJB is the number of men who worked on the translation, yet they came to agreement. This is similar to the scriptures themselves, one of the greatest arguments that the scriptures are the Word of God is that many men over thousands of years agreed perfectly with each other. ...

Click to expand...

Hi Winman. I will speculate that you placed all that info about the KJV translators because you thought I was not aware of the history. I assure you that I am quite knowledgeable and was careful in my word selection when I wrote "committee" in my post.

But my point was that they did NOT "perfectly" agree even within their own English text.

ExpandCollapse

Administrator

Administrator

The amazing thing about the KJB is the number of men who worked on the translation, yet they came to agreement.

Click to expand...

Actually they didn't. In fact their disagreements sometimes got so violent that others had to get between those having the disagreements to avoid bloodshed. All such differences of opinion were turned over to the final revision committee to make a final determination. If they could not reach a consensus they would put the reading with the most votes in the text and the alternate reading in the margin.

Remember my dad's sage advice: When you don't know what you are talking about it is a good time to stop talking.

ExpandCollapse

<b>Moderator</b>

Moderator

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

says that marginal notes will have to be used otherwise the Greek and Hebrew cannot be translated clearly in the King's English. If this is true, then do those explainations become canon?

If these rules are followed to the letter it is obvious that they would have to be carried forward in newer versions of the KJV. By the way my copy of a 1611 is chocked full of margin notes. I guess I need to start studying them or I will not read an accurate Bible.

This sounds a LOT like the way the first NIV was translated; with one BIG exception that they were not to take an old English translation and make as few changes as possible. I do believe that the work done even on the weak NIV was probably much more accurate considering both our increase in knowledge and location of older manuscripts to compare to the very few documents the KJV crew used.

Please note, I am not saying they did a good job for the date it was done and capabilities of that period. By comparing multitudes of documents both fairly new (like the KJV) with old ones we have obviously, according to Doc found that we can pretty much duplicate the originals within 1% accuracy. I would imagine that many of these are now scanned and compared using computers, thus not requiring the manpower of 1611. The key would be to just spit out the results and let the committees make the final decisions on each verse. I do like the footnotes that mention that some manuscripts may or may not contain certain words or even a few verses which don't change God's Word one iota when you consider that God's Word is a Living message to us from God Himself.

If I miss the last few verses of Mark, it certainly doesn't change my theology. I know good and well that the early Christians who were close to Jesus could do miracles to show that He was the Son of God, I don't need to be told that someone can survive a snake bite, but I'm not going to pick up a snake today because someone might have added that verse to make a point. It's obvious that the ending of Mark is a little bit, well, doesn't sound quite right?

How do you explain that there were no manuscripts used for the last few verses of Revelation. Why did the translators choose to retranslate the Latin Vulgate to English to finish it off? Why not just translate the Vulgate since it was obviously older than the manuscripts they used?

Who is this Dr. Vance anyway and where did he happen to find this list of rules? (He may be a GREAT and well-known scholar--Vance rings a bell, but my brother was an instructor for jet fighters at Vance Air Force Base, so therefore, I think Vance rings a bell since I saw it many times on the entrance signs.) Yes, I'm being a little tongue in cheek here, sorry, just had to say it.

It appears to me to be a something created to try to explain how they thought the process worked for a history lesson. Remember the rules for revolution by the communists handed out in the 60's? A list of things they would do to America and although many may be true, nobody proved anybody would find a written list of revolutions to take over the United States. If they did find some, they would be classified and kept in the CIA vaults; because only a turn-coat could get hold of an original "Rules for Revolution of the U.S." from inside the Soviet Union.

ExpandCollapse

Banned

Actually they didn't. In fact their disagreements sometimes got so violent that others had to get between those having the disagreements to avoid bloodshed. All such differences of opinion were turned over to the final revision committee to make a final determination. If they could not reach a consensus they would put the reading with the most votes in the text and the alternate reading in the margin.

Remember my dad's sage advice: When you don't know what you are talking about it is a good time to stop talking.

Click to expand...

That's good, that is the way it should be. I don't doubt they had disagreements whatsoever, and they set up a process to deal with that. And if you read those 15 rules, they also consulted men outside the six committees. How many men they consulted we will probably never know, but it is likely they consulted dozens, if not hundreds of learned scholars of that day.

And the KJB was not translated in secret the way the W&H texts were. They were open to all.

Do, you have the source to prove your statement that their disagreements were so violent that they almost led to bloodshed? I read many good books on the subject years ago, I never remember reading that.

ExpandCollapse

<b> 7,000 posts club</b>

Administrator

And the KJB was not translated in secret the way the W&H texts were. They were open to all.

Click to expand...

If by "all" you mean all Anglican scholars and divines adept at Greek and Hebrew, you might have something, yet it also is not strictly true. Puritan Hugh Broughton, arguably the premier Hebrew scholar in the kingdom, certainly was not asked his advice (which he had generously provided previously in his An Epistle to the learned Nobilitie of England, touching translating the Bible from the Original).

Of course, it goes without saying that there were no Separatists (including Baptists) consulted for the translation.

The number of translators of the ERV/ASV (if that is what you are referring to in your mention of the "W&H texts") was large, consisting of both English (including two Baptists) and American members. They were not compensated for their work.

They also had a procedure for settling disagreements:

The principles and Rules agreed to by the Committee of Convocation on the twenty-fifth day of May 1870 were as follows:

... 3. Each Company to go twice over the portion to be revised, once provisionally, the second time finally, and on principles of voting as hereinafter provided.

... 5. To make or retain no change in the Text on the second final revision by each Company, except two thirds of those present approve of the same, but on the first revision to decide by simple majorities.

6. In every case of proposed alteration that may have given rise to discussion, to defer the voting thereupon till the next Meeting, whensoever the same shall be required by one third of those present at the Meeting, such intended vote to be announced in the notice for the next Meeting.

... 8. To refer, on the part of each Company, when considered desirable, to Divines, Scholars, and Literary Men, whether at home or abroad, for their opinions. ...

Click to expand...

I do not know the procedures of other modern translators, but I would assume that all those done by committee have similar methods.

Now, if you prefer a translation "open to all," I would refer you to the translators of the New English Translation, who posted all draft translations to the Internet for public review and comment.

ExpandCollapse

Banned

It's not funny if it is true. You might want to verify the veracity of your sources of information on them.

They are not the devils that KJVOs have painted them to be- but then again they weren't IFB (or SBC) either.

Click to expand...

That Wescort and Hort displayed some very un-Christian behavior is well known. I could show you half a dozen websites on this.

Wescott denied that Jesus was God.

"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

Click to expand...

That is from his own writings. I would say that is pretty serious heresy, would you?

By the way, Jesus did speak of himself as God, and that is why the Jews tried to stone him.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

When the Lord appeared to Moses and Moses asked his name, the Lord said, I AM THAT I AM (Exo 3:14). The Jews understood this, and when Jesus said "I am" they clearly understood that he was saying he was God. That is why they picked up stones to attempt to stone him.

How about this from Hort?

"Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christs bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." 104

Click to expand...

Hort said that the belief that Jesus bore our sins was heresy. He wrote that all men must suffer for their own sins.

"The fact is, I do not see how Gods justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins." 103

Click to expand...

I do not need to tell you this, anybody who is interested can easily look this up. Westcott and Hort were into spiritualism, believed in evolution and many other very unorthodox beliefs. This is common knowledge.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

That Wescort and Hort displayed some very un-Christian behavior is well known. I could show you half a dozen websites on this.

Wescott denied that Jesus was God.

That is from his own writings. I would say that is pretty serious heresy, would you?

By the way, Jesus did speak of himself as God, and that is why the Jews tried to stone him.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

When the Lord appeared to Moses and Moses asked his name, the Lord said, I AM THAT I AM (Exo 3:14). The Jews understood this, and when Jesus said "I am" they clearly understood that he was saying he was God. That is why they picked up stones to attempt to stone him.

How about this from Hort?

Hort said that the belief that Jesus bore our sins was heresy. He wrote that all men must suffer for their own sins.

I do not need to tell you this, anybody who is interested can easily look this up. Westcott and Hort were into spiritualism, believed in evolution and many other very unorthodox beliefs. This is common knowledge.

Click to expand...

As I said, verify the veracity of your sources. You might go and get the quotes- complete and in context- and find out that they did NOT say what they are accused of saying.

ExpandCollapse

Banned

As I said, verify the veracity of your sources. You might go and get the quotes- complete and in context- and find out that they did NOT say what they are accused of saying.

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree that both sides often take a single sentence out of context and make it appear to say something the author did not intend.

But it is also true that people often refuse to believe the truth because of a bias.

That Wescott and Hort were associated with spiritualism and the occult is well known. They actually formed some of these societies.

Along with Bishop Edward White Benson, Westcott and Hort founded the Ghostly Guild. This club was designed to investigate ghosts and supernatural appearances. The club was based upon the idea that such spirits actually exist and appear to men. According to The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, the members of the Ghostly Club would "relate personal experiences concerned with ghosts.

This club would eventually become the Society for Psychical Research. According to James Webb in The Occult Underground and W.H. Solter, The S.P.R. - An Outline of It’s History, this club became a major factor in the rise of spiritualism among the elite of English society in the late 1800's. Many leading occult figures belonged to the Society.

Along the way, Westcott and Hort dropped out of the Ghostly Guild. However, they had plenty of opportunity to be exposed to the occult and demonism before they withdrew.

Westcott’s son refers to his father’s life long faith in spiritualism (Archbishop Benson’s son referred to Benson in the same way). Communion with spirits became quite fashionable in the late 1800's in British society. Even Queen Victoria, who normally led a responsible Christian life, dabbled in spiritualism. However, it was considered unseemly for Church of England clergymen, and Wescott had to keep his ideas quiet. According to Wescott’s son, Arthur, Dr. Wescott practiced the Communion of the Saints. This was a belief that you can fellowship with the spirits of those who died recently.

Bible translator J. B. Phillips also believed in the Communion of Saints. He believed that the spirit of C.S. Lewis visited him after his death. According to Arthur Wescott, Bishop Wescott also had such experiences with spirits. His son writes, "The Communion of Saints seems particularly associated with Peterborough. He had an extraordinary power of realizing this Communion. It was his delight to be alone at night in the great Cathedral, for there he could meditate and pray in full sympathy with all that was good and great in the past. . . There he always had abundant company." Wescott’s daughter met him returning from one of his customary meditations in the solitary darkness of the chapel at Auckland castle. She said to him, " I expect you do not feel alone?" "Oh, no," he said, "It is full."

Either Dr. Wescott’s children lied about him or Dr. Wescott was used to meeting with spirits. Bible believers recognize these spirits as demons. Wescott and Hort both joined a secret society called, The Apostles. It was limited to 12 members. One of the other members Henry Sidgwick. He was also stated to have led several professors at Trinity College into secretly practicing the occult. Wescott, his close friend, was also a professor at Trinity College. Strange company for a Christian teacher and Bible translator.

In 1872 Wescott formed a secret society, the Eranus Club. Members included Hort, Sidgwick, Arthur Balfour (future prime minister of England), Archbishop Trench and Dean Alford. Both Trench and Alford would be involved in Bible revision work. Balfour became famous for his seances and practice of spiritualism. The Eranus Club would eventually become known as an occult secret society.

Wescott’s defenders point out that Wescott also eventually dropped out of Eranus. Still he was certainly allied with practioners of the occult in a secret society for a period of time.

Balfour and Sedgwick were involved in several occult organizations, socialism and Theosophy. How many Christians have so many friends prominent in the practice of the occult?

Balfour would also be involved in the founding of the League of Nations and in forming a secret society with Cecil Rhodes (the Round Table and the Council on Foreign Relations).

Click to expand...

Wescott and Hort were also socialists, Wescott was at one time president of the Christian Social Union.

ExpandCollapse

Administrator

Administrator

Only [snip] who knows absolutely nothing about B. F. Westcott and his writings would make such an ignorant statement.

First of all his name is spelled "WESTCOTT." You can't even spell his name correctly and you claim to know so much about him?

All you have to do is read his commentaries on the New Testament to know he was theologically conservative and believed in the absolute Deity of Christ!

Read his two major commentaries, Hebrews and the Gospel of John, and it will become quickly apparent that Dr. Westcott affirmed the divinity of our Lord. Note these citations with my added emphasis:

He who was GOD BECAME FLESH: He who was with God tabernacled among us (comp. 1 John i:2)He who was IN THE BEGINNING, became (in time), (Gospel of John, p. 2)

No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the TRUE DEITY OF THE WORD, (Gospel of John, p. 3).

That Wescott and Hort were associated with spiritualism and the occult is well known. They actually formed some of these societies.

Click to expand...

Another stupid lie. And, once again you display abysmal ignorance in that you can't even spell the man's name!

Both Westcott and Hort were invited to join a club, the Ghostly Guild, in 1851, whose purpose was to investigate firsthand accounts of supernatural phenomena and determine if any of it was real or false. The primary purpose for the club was to debunk many of the ghost stories and spiritism that was so popular in England at that time. The club was ANTI-OCCULT[personal attack snipped]

Wescott and Hort were also socialists, Wescott was at one time president of the Christian Social Union.

Click to expand...

Good grief! You can't be that stupid! The Christian Social Union was part of the Church of England that was dedicated to helping people improve their social condition by addressing business ethics and how people were treated by those in power! It had nothing at all to do with SOCIALISM!

Believe what you want, the documentation is out there.

Click to expand...

What "documentation?" Gail Riplinger's lunatic ravings?

Do a little personal study and stop depending on ignorant fools for your "documentation" and maybe, just maybe, [snipped]

It is clear that this is not a reliable source. There are no notes to be able to support the claims, there is false information clearly posted there, and it is clearly written on a KJVO site that will not ever post anything against their beliefs. The "documentation" has been disproven.

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!